human909 wrote:"Bad behaviour"? Is it now bad behaviour for children to ride without a helmet? Most of my childhood consisted of riding around the neighbourhood without helmets.

harking back to the 'good ol' days' isn't very convincing human.

So are kids less coordinated these days? Are they worse cyclists now? Are the roads harder?

the traffic is certainly worse. but the main difference is the change in societal acceptance of what is "safe".

drink driving and the utter carnage wreaked when it was socially acceptable was something "people did back in the old days and i can't think of anyone i know today who was killed doing that" - is that OK too?

jules21 wrote:but the main difference is the change in societal acceptance of what is "safe".

And the key instigator in this change regarding cycling was MHLs! If you think that riding a bike is unsafe then that isn't going to change by putting a helmet on.

jules21 wrote:drink driving and the utter carnage wreaked when it was socially acceptable was something "people did back in the old days and i can't think of anyone i know today who was killed doing that" - is that OK too?

I don't care what you do as long as you aren't harming or endangering others.

Howzat wrote:Prioritising the repeal of MHLs has the drawback that some of the most common arguments for repeal stand in opposition to some of the best arguments for cycling infrastructure.

No, they don't. It is well established that GOOD separated infrastructure improves the safety of cyclists. Nobody here is saying otherwise.

human909 wrote:It is well established that GOOD separated infrastructure improves the safety of cyclists. Nobody here is saying otherwise.

Well, trouble is you're inadvertently undercutting this case for infrastructure, right here in the exact same post...

human909 wrote:

jules21 wrote:the traffic is certainly worse.

That doesn't mean more dangerous so I'm not sure the relevance.

It would be more effective to argue either that you can improve safety with good infrastructure, or that worse traffic doesn't increase danger to cyclists. But try to make both points at the same time, and the messages tread on each other. This is the point about choosing advocacy priorities - they don't all fit together as neatly as we'd like.

The head of neurosurgery at The Alfred hospital, Professor Jeffrey Rosenfeld, said dumping compulsory helmets would be a retrograde step.

''I'm the one who sits at the hospital looking after the victims of road trauma,'' he said. ''There are many cyclists among them, and I can't help but think that if they weren't wearing helmets their injuries would be significantly worse.'' He said the idea that compulsory helmets dissuaded people from healthy exercise was ''specious'' and he called the October 6 ride a publicity stunt and a bad example.

This is a classic example of why we should not allow self-proclaimed "experts" too much say in dictating what laws should be. Because they are usually only an expert in one very narrow part of the question, like this doctor, but then claim jurisdiction over the whole area.

I am sure this doctor is extremely competent at treating head injuries, but that doesn't mean he has any knowledge at all about the best ways to prevent them or about whether or not compulsory helmet laws are detrimental in other ways. Yet this does not stop him making foolish comments about things he apparently knows little about.

This person may well believe that it is wise to wear a helmet while riding a bike, but his opinion is not made any more credible or persuasive because he is a neurosurgeon. After all, he would see many more patients with head injuries from car accidents and yet he is not saying: "I can't help but think their injuries would have been significantly lessened if they were wearing a helmet".

So enlighten us to what fields you are an expert in? So being a neurosurgeon has no credability? Who then should get a say?

Ross wrote:So enlighten us to what fields you are an expert in? So being a neurosurgeon has no credability? Who then should get a say?

I think someone who is experienced in traffic laws, ergonomics, politics, cycling accidents, helmet effectiveness/materials science and perhaps comparative statistics would be more help than a neurosurgeon.

The neurosurgeon can fix breaks, monitor recovery, and diagnose problems of the brain. The helmet has absolutely no impact on their ability to judge that - because you have to smash a skull into a wall with and without helmets to find out what the result is. You can't learn that kind of information without doing scientific studies... that's why they are called surgeons and not scientists.

Infrastructure isn't necessary if drivers learn to grow up and realise that they have to share the road with other people. We've already got infrastructure, it is called a road. Any cyclist on the road is able to ride in a straight line - maybe the drivers around them need to react in a similar sensible fashion.

Xplora wrote:Infrastructure isn't necessary if drivers learn to grow up and realise that they have to share the road with other people. We've already got infrastructure, it is called a road. Any cyclist on the road is able to ride in a straight line - maybe the drivers around them need to react in a similar sensible fashion.

And if everyone would just be peaceful we could have world peace! It is that simple! /s

Xplora wrote:Infrastructure isn't necessary if drivers learn to grow up and realise that they have to share the road with other people. We've already got infrastructure, it is called a road. Any cyclist on the road is able to ride in a straight line - maybe the drivers around them need to react in a similar sensible fashion.

Absolutely agree with this. Cyclists need to be part of the regular road-user population, and they, and all other road users need to behave with common sense and courtesy towards each other. Separated cycling infrastructure compounds resentment, imprints the idea that cyclists are somehow not normal, highlights the supposed dangers of cycling, and supports the idea that cycling is not mainstream and that it is inheritantly dangerous. IMO MHLs also imprint the "danger" idea without offering a significant ROI.

Xplora wrote:Infrastructure isn't necessary if drivers learn to grow up and realise that they have to share the road with other people. We've already got infrastructure, it is called a road. Any cyclist on the road is able to ride in a straight line - maybe the drivers around them need to react in a similar sensible fashion.

Absolutely agree with this. Cyclists need to be part of the regular road-user population, and they, and all other road users need to behave with common sense and courtesy towards each other. Separated cycling infrastructure compounds resentment, imprints the idea that cyclists are somehow not normal, highlights the supposed dangers of cycling, and supports the idea that cycling is not mainstream and that it is inheritantly dangerous. IMO MHLs also imprint the "danger" idea without offering a significant ROI.

Have you really got any evidence for that? I present the separated infrastructure of both Amsterdam and Copenhagen as evidence of the opposite.

Xplora wrote:Infrastructure isn't necessary if drivers learn to grow up and realise that they have to share the road with other people. We've already got infrastructure, it is called a road. Any cyclist on the road is able to ride in a straight line - maybe the drivers around them need to react in a similar sensible fashion.

Absolutely agree with this. Cyclists need to be part of the regular road-user population, and they, and all other road users need to behave with common sense and courtesy towards each other. Separated cycling infrastructure compounds resentment, imprints the idea that cyclists are somehow not normal, highlights the supposed dangers of cycling, and supports the idea that cycling is not mainstream and that it is inheritantly dangerous. IMO MHLs also imprint the "danger" idea without offering a significant ROI.

Have you really got any evidence for that? I present the separated infrastructure of both Amsterdam and Copenhagen as evidence of the opposite.

Why doe everything need "evidence". Is thought no longer fashionable?

Listen to many of the comments from motorists. They want us off the roads! There is a real attitude problem and until that changes cycling in Australia is significantly less safe than it would otherwise be. We need to fix that through legislative change, education and most of all getting more people cycling. MHLs have been entirely detrimental to the health of cycling in Australia.

Howzat wrote:The point is that cycling advocates have to make priorities.

Prioritising the repeal of MHLs has the drawback that some of the most common arguments for repeal stand in opposition to some of the best arguments for cycling infrastructure.

This is a problem, as there are plenty of opponents of cycling ready to question any spending Aussie taxpayer funds on cycleways.

If cyclist are arguing it's already safe and all we need to do to lift cycling participation is get rid of helmet laws, then we're inadvertently making Alan Jones's case for him.

If we don't think this out carefully, we'll end up with Dutch-style helmet laws and Australian-style cycling infrastructure.

+1. Post of the year. That's always been my response to the anti-MHL argument. If we had the separated cycling infrastructure of Northern Europe and the same laws regarding motorists being at fault in accidents with cyclists then sure you probably wouldn't need MHLs. But in Australia, we don't have the infrastructure or cyclist friendly road rules, so MHLs are required.

biker jk wrote:But in Australia, we don't have the infrastructure or cyclist friendly road rules, so MHLs are required.

Clearly MHLs fixes the problem.

Well if the aim is to reduce head injuries in this context, MHLs are required. You obviously didn't understand the point I was making (or perhaps misconstrued it) and hence your juvenile response.

First off you can wear helmets without making the mandatory. Secondly it isn't even clear that MHLs do reduce the incident rate of head injuries. The significant impact it has has on cycling rates and thus improved safety is not to be underestimated. Thirdly the bit I was alluding to, if cars are hitting cyclists regularly enough that "helmets are needed" then helmets are going to fix the problem that like encouraging wearing motorcycle leathers in a gun fight.

Howzat wrote:The point is that cycling advocates have to make priorities.

Prioritising the repeal of MHLs has the drawback that some of the most common arguments for repeal stand in opposition to some of the best arguments for cycling infrastructure.

This is a problem, as there are plenty of opponents of cycling ready to question any spending Aussie taxpayer funds on cycleways.

If cyclist are arguing it's already safe and all we need to do to lift cycling participation is get rid of helmet laws, then we're inadvertently making Alan Jones's case for him.

If we don't think this out carefully, we'll end up with Dutch-style helmet laws and Australian-style cycling infrastructure.

+1. Post of the year. That's always been my response to the anti-MHL argument. If we had the separated cycling infrastructure of Northern Europe and the same laws regarding motorists being at fault in accidents with cyclists then sure you probably wouldn't need MHLs. But in Australia, we don't have the infrastructure or cyclist friendly road rules, so MHLs are required.

The problem with these arguments is that there are a great many parts of all our big capital cities where high quality separated infrastructure exists. Why shouldn't people be allowed to use these in the same way they do in europe? We're talking choice... not banning helmets out of spite.

Simonn have you been to Amsterdam? I was there earlier this year, yes there were a lot of bike paths, but not every street has them and, I know this will surprise you, when you have to share the road with cars and there is no separate bike lane, they don't force you to put a helmet on.

Much as I support cycling infrastructure the reality is that no city in the world has cycling infrastructure to replace all of their roads. There is a very simple reason for this, roads are for vehicles and bicycles are vehicles. We should be able to safely share the roads with other vehicles such as cars. We need to fix the problem, ie: bad driving, not just band aid it by making it mandatory to wear a helmet which is not rated for either the speed or mass of cars.

The only way to make cycling a normal activity is to make riding on roads normal. It also would help to not give the impression cycling is very dangerous by legally mandating we wear safety equipment in the form of helmets.

DavidS wrote:The only way to make cycling a normal activity is to make riding on roads normal. It also would help to not give the impression cycling is very dangerous by legally mandating we wear safety equipment in the form of helmets.

I know where you're going and don't entirely disagree - but once again, in making the case for the repeal of MHLs, we end up arguing against cycling infrastructure.

We cyclists have just got to get our advocacy priorities straight on this. Or else the anti-bike blowhards will win hands down.

DavidS wrote:The only way to make cycling a normal activity is to make riding on roads normal. It also would help to not give the impression cycling is very dangerous by legally mandating we wear safety equipment in the form of helmets.

I know where you're going and don't entirely disagree - but once again, in making the case for the repeal of MHLs, we end up arguing against cycling infrastructure.

We cyclists have just got to get our advocacy priorities straight on this. Or else the anti-bike blowhards will win hands down.

To some extent I agree, especially since the MHLs don't look like they are going to be repealed any time soon. Yes, I would like to see MHLs repealed but I also concede there are other issues that we are likely to get more traction on.

That said, this is the MHL thread so that's the debate here. Plus, a bit of pressure on this issue can only help.

biker jk wrote:But in Australia, we don't have the infrastructure or cyclist friendly road rules, so MHLs are required.

Clearly MHLs fixes the problem.

Well if the aim is to reduce head injuries in this context, MHLs are required. You obviously didn't understand the point I was making (or perhaps misconstrued it) and hence your juvenile response.

I will go further than H909... MHLs are NOT correlated with vastly improved head injuries rates. It would be crazy obvious that MHL made a big difference to head injury rates from the data. It is not. It would be crazy obvious if NZ had much better injury rates than any number of other first world countries. They do not.

I agree that getting along isn't necessarily something we can aim for, but a helmet won't help you if someone knowingly messes with you on the road.

I don't understand the (for want of a better word) "argument" put forth that if we had Amsterdam style segregated cycleways then we could do away with helmets. Is there some high-tech force field installed on these that somehow prevent crashes? How does it work? There would still be sticks, rocks, other cyclists of varying abilities and speeds and likely to be the odd pedestrian and stray animals as well, which can cause crashes.

First, cycling has flourished since the helmet legislation was enacted in 1991. There is no sign of widespread grassroots ideological opposition to the law, any more than there is to mandatory helmets for motorcyclists or seatbelts in cars.

Cycling rates are rising rapidly and claims that repealing the law will encourage more cyclists are light on fact and heavy on opinion.

Second, there is solid evidence that cyclist head injuries have declined while other cyclist injuries have not during this period: that is, when accidents happen, helmets make an important difference. No one should need reminding that serious head injuries may exact a lifelong toll on the individual and be a great cost to the community..."

Ross wrote:I don't understand the (for want of a better word) "argument" put forth that if we had Amsterdam style segregated cycleways then we could do away with helmets. Is there some high-tech force field installed on these that somehow prevent crashes? How does it work? There would still be sticks, rocks, other cyclists of varying abilities and speeds and likely to be the odd pedestrian and stray animals as well, which can cause crashes.

Neither do I.

But the continuing rationalisation by many of why we need helmets and the dutch don't is to do with the safety of our roads. Saying that Australia is different.

Ross wrote:There would still be sticks, rocks, other cyclists of varying abilities and speeds and likely to be the odd pedestrian and stray animals as well, which can cause crashes.

Or my favourite, the fine gravel on bends that washes across Canberra cycle paths after every spot of rain.

Helmets in any individual case are a good idea. They prevent injuries to the rider and medical costs to everyone else. But they are a PITA for bike share schemes. And perhaps for riding at <15 kmh - the "soft focus long-haired model with flowers in the basket" kind of riding we see in photo shoots - are helmets necessary? Maybe not.

But does making an exception mean we going to have a policy that requires bike cops with radar guns ticketing the helmetless who go above a certain speed? And, with a relaxation of the rules we can be pretty sure that the first people to not wear helmets would be the same guys who commute through red lights every morning So a relaxation may mean higher medical costs for taxpayers - and maybe we'd rather spend that money on decent infrastructure, something more than the spot of green paint on the road stuff we tend to get fobbed off with.

From a pragmatic/political point of view, I don't think MHLs are likely to be repealed, especially after the UNSW Rissel/Voukelatos anti-MHL paper got pulled last year for being junk science. That really was a hit below the waterline for anti-MHL credibility as far as policy makers are concerned.

That is an interesting conclusion. Furthermore what gives you the impression that this group is more likely to be in an accident. If they are doing it every morning then they are probably pretty good at ensuring they don't get hit.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.